Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (2) TMI 376 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues:
Bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. based on misinterpretation of provisions of the Act of 1940.

Analysis:

1. The applicant-petitioner filed a bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The case involved an offense under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 476, 120-B of I.P.C. read with various sections of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The contention was that the lower court erred in granting bail to the accused-respondent due to a misinterpretation of the Act of 1940, specifically Section 19(3.

2. The argument presented was that the accused-respondent purchased drugs from a source not duly licensed, which violated the provisions of the Act. The lower court's decision was challenged based on the fact that crucial evidence, such as purchase bills and records, was not provided to the Investigating Officer. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the claim that the bail order was vitiated by serious infirmities, justifying the High Court's intervention in the interest of justice.

3. The petitioner further contended that the accused-respondent was an integral part of a spurious and counterfeit drugs racket, as evidenced by the charges framed against him and his involvement in the drug peddling activities. The absence of legitimate bills and records for the seized spurious drugs indicated his complicity in the illegal activities. Considering the severity of the offense and the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act of 1940, the petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent.

4. The accused-respondent opposed the bail cancellation application, arguing that the petitioner lacked the right to file such an application as he was not the complainant in the case. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize the trend towards granting bail and the criteria for assessing bail applications, focusing on the accused's availability for trial and the risk of evidence tampering.

5. In response to the arguments raised by the accused-respondent, the petitioner asserted that any concerned party could file a bail cancellation application, citing relevant legal judgments. The petitioner highlighted the importance of considering only relevant materials in bail decisions, as irrelevant factors could impact the judicial process.

6. After considering the contentions of both parties, the High Court found that the lower court had failed to properly interpret Section 19 of the Act of 1940. The accused-respondent's involvement in dealing with spurious drugs without proper documentation and from an unlicensed source was a crucial factor in the decision to cancel bail. The court noted the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the drug involved, and the accused's role in the illicit drug racket, leading to the cancellation of bail and directing the trial court to take the accused-respondent into custody immediately.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates